 | | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) ?? Did I miss BW 02 ? I thought last year was BW 01? (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
| |
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) BW (20)03. JAmes (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
| |
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) I think he means BW 2003, not BW (version/event 3). Just My Opinion, though Ben. (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
| |
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) Thanks. An apostrophe was omitted, then. Correct usage for date oriented appelations is either BW 2003 or BW '03 but not BW 03... as to do that engenders confusion :-) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
| |
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) Thank you for so aptly proving an earlier point about public discussion. 8?| Matt (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
| |
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) The first BricksWest was BricksWest 2002, which would be appreviated BW02 or BW '02. Since this is number one it might be appreviated 01BW02 or #1 BW02 or BW '02 1. The second BricksWest will be BW '03 or #2 BW 03 or BW03 2. I guess the easy (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
| |
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) What point was that? If this was sarcasm, it was lost on me, I am afraid. My sole goal is clarity. (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
| |
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
|
(...) I think Matt's point was that he felt that private discussion was best for the planning and organizing....he felt that individuals like you, me, and others (James Brown) are pretty well non participants that wouldn't help the cause.... you may (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
